Death penalty

**BarBender** · 27th June 2007, 21:19

Originally Posted by 98tls

....an endless thread i guess but i will defy anyone to say no to the death penalty after seeing the aftermath of an act of true brutality against a loved one...........

Not all people will want it TLS

Our family have had a close relative beaten and murdered...and I can confidently say that wanting the offender dead was not something we individually or as a family wanted. As far as we were concerned - the hate had to end somewhere...

However I cant speak for those who would want an offender dead...

**Mom** · 27th June 2007, 21:22

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Very true - and dead innocents don't get to be a parent to their sons and daughters. Your point being?

I've been thinking though......alive innocents in jail cant parent their children either can they? That is a suck arguement MDU, may as well kill them from the start?

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

kill them i say!!!

Unreal..........I am shocked!.......Oh eye for eye, now see I could go there

**98tls** · 27th June 2007, 21:25

Originally Posted by BarBender

Not all people will want it TLS

Our family have had a close relative beaten and murdered...and I can confidently say that wanting the offender dead was not something we individually or as a family wanted. As far as we were concerned - the hate had to end somewhere...

However I cant speak for those who would want an offender dead...

Fair call.............myself and mine think differently.........given 1/2 a chance i would gladly do it myself.........and smile as i did so............

**Ocean1** · 27th June 2007, 21:25

Originally Posted by Lissa

I'm against the death penalty. I am also against reoffending.

A cynic might suggest you can't have your cake and eat it too. He might also ask what you're for.

I think it's possible to prevent reoffending without killing, possibly without violence of any sort. We need to accept some of the "lesser evels" though.

We could start by micro-chipping every convicted violent offender, so that their location is known at all times. But that's a violation of their civil liberty...

Originally Posted by Lissa

If someone murdered one of my family or friends, I would want them to suffer, and to never see the light of day again.

Who better qualified than the victim to define the cost of the offence, the state seems unable (or unwilling) to.

**imdying** · 27th June 2007, 21:31

It won't be too far into the future till we can 'plug in' to a computer. Maybe 50 years tops? It's a short hop and a jump to chips that can control offenders

**98tls** · 27th June 2007, 21:34

Originally Posted by imdying

It won't be too far into the future till we can 'plug in' to a computer. Maybe 50 years tops? It's a short hop and a jump to chips that can control offenders

Mate your smarter than that........next you will tell me that you cant understand how drugs get inside the big house..........

**Ocean1** · 27th June 2007, 21:39

Originally Posted by imdying

It won't be too far into the future till we can 'plug in' to a computer. Maybe 50 years tops? It's a short hop and a jump to chips that can control offenders

Change their behaviour? who they are?

Are you a god?

Less violent option to simply kill them.

**imdying** · 27th June 2007, 21:47

Ooooh, now we've got a thread

Death penalty we've done... offenders controlled by the 'central computer'... don't like the sound of that?

I'm a developer of (sometimes) embedded systems... not that sort of embedded, but I'll take that Pepsi challenge

/edit: Kill someone... you 'join the army'

**Ocean1** · 27th June 2007, 22:05

Originally Posted by imdying

Ooooh, now we've got a thread

Death penalty we've done... offenders controlled by the 'central computer'... don't like the sound of that?

I'm a developer of (sometimes) embedded systems... not that sort of embedded, but I'll take that Pepsi challenge

/edit: Kill someone... you 'join the army'

Attractive. But unethical.

Protect your family by tracking them yes, perhaps an assault of their dignity and freedom but ethically defensible.

Controlling them in the way you suggest is not only unethical it's dangerous. Can you see a time when failure to pay a parking fine sees you helping the Feds keep an eye on the neighbours?

**peasea** · 27th June 2007, 22:11

It's all about the 'beyond reasonable doubt' thing isn't it? If twenty people see you knife an old lady then fair enough, there's no doubt, out with the rope. On the other hand, a chat with Arthur Allan Thomas would be interesting. Where/when does 'reasonable doubt' (or the lack of it) become reality? When a cop plats a gun/shell case/knife whatever, when luminol sets off some chemical that LOOKS like blood etc etc?

I don't trust the system enought to say 'string em up' unless there's more than one eye witness, video tape or some firm evidence you can eye-ball. Being an innocent on Death Row would drive anyone to drink, especially if they'd got it wrong or some bar steward set you up.

It's a toughie.

What if they're gaga? If their brain is fried why keep them alive? Chuck that one in the mix.

**oldrider** · 27th June 2007, 22:21

I am against the death penalty on principal but I feel it needs to be reintroduced for serious repeat offenders.

I would also like the so called "authorities" responsible for releasing repeat offenders to be placed in custody.

They could take the place of the criminal that they released and complete the term of the offender that was executed.

At least that would create some accountability into the "parole" equation!

John.

**98tls** · 27th June 2007, 22:43

Originally Posted by oldrider

I am against the death penalty on principal but I feel it needs to be reintroduced for serious repeat offenders.

I would also like the so called "authorities" responsible for releasing repeat offenders to be placed in custody.

They could take the place of the criminal that they released and complete the term of the offender that was executed.

At least that would create some accountability into the "parole" equation!

John.

Nice thought john.....But........a bit treehuggish..........thing is how many "innocents" have to suffer before said repeat offenders are deemed "repeat offenders".........thing is they...the system seem to knock a few charges off if your Ngati-tahu or your parents separated before you were 5 years old..............

**peasea** · 27th June 2007, 22:55

Originally Posted by 98tls

Nice thought john.....But........a bit treehuggish..........thing is how many "innocents" have to suffer before said repeat offenders are deemed "repeat offenders".........thing is they...the system seem to knock a few charges off if your Ngati-tahu or your parents separated before you were 5 years old..............

Yeah funny that; we noticed on some lame cops and robbers show the other night (Motor Way Patrol or something) that some native in a yellow Anglia was carting passengers on a restricted, no WOF, no Rego and he was given a sticker to go home and get it sorted. WTF? If that'd been you or me (bro) we'd be looking at about a grand! If that's not racist I dunno what is. That level is where a lot of shit starts.

**devnull** · 27th June 2007, 22:56

A "beyond doubt" capital offence - death penalty.
Circumstantial evidence only - life

And some hardening up of the manslaughter & murder laws wouldn't go amiss either. I'm thinking about the ratbags that beat the little boy to death in Auck, but were only convicted of manslaughter

Time for a re-run of "Boondock Saints"

**peasea** · 27th June 2007, 23:01

Originally Posted by devnull

A "beyond doubt" capital offence - death penalty.
Circumstantial evidence only - life

And some hardening up of the manslaughter & murder laws wouldn't go amiss either. I'm thinking about the ratbags that beat the little boy to death in Auck, but were only convicted of manslaughter

Time for a re-run of "Boondock Saints"

Yup, softcock judges don't help.